danballfandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Dan-Ball Webmasters
Neutrality Are you sure a Neutrality catagory fits this? I mean, just an article which needs improvment should be okay, but why neutrality? A lack of imformation doesn't mean it's biased, so I believe a different catagory should be added, such as Quality. Starrysock (talk) 04:40, August 29, 2014 (UTC) :Very limited information about the Webmasters is a problem, which can also leave room for bias and weasel wording (which it has) I put it on Neutrality because of these problems. Quality, however, I don't think would work as it's as cleaned up as it could be. :I am willing to change it, if you can find a template that could fit besides Neutrality or Quality. ( Omega16)(Talk) 16:16, August 29, 2014 (UTC) ::Well, a Neutrality template would best be used after the bias/weasel wording has occured (obviously, but I needed to point this out). What your intention is is to put a template that marks the page as being subject to neutrality disputes, but said template doesn't exist (and I believe it shouldn't). There are three things that would work for me: ::#Leave the template there. According to Omega16, there will be bias in the future. ::#Take the template off, then wait until a noticeable amount of bias is added until putting it back on. ::#Take the template off permanently, then fix whatever counts as clear bias or weasel wording every time it happens (requires more editing, but I this way we don't have to worry about the template). ::So, what should we do? Where the party's at [[User:$igma|'Σ']] 17:09, August 29, 2014 (UTC) ::Yeah, I'd be willing to fix any weasel wording if and when it appears. I just don't think there's anything on the Wiki that says one should guess that the article will eventually have something bad happen to it. I mean, basically every new article starts like this, and not every new article ends up having neutrality issues. I believe the catagory should be removed until any weasel wording appears, if it does. My main reason is that I don't think this is Wikia protocol to lable an article with limited information anything other than a stub (even though it's too large for a stub)(I haven't read through the entire Wiki, so correct me if I'm wrong). Starrysock (talk) 17:28, August 29, 2014 (UTC) :::Maybe we should take it off, edit anything that clearly "tips the scale", and if there is eventually content that might be biased, we can put the template back on to have others present their opinions. Where the party's at [[User:$igma|'Σ']] 17:53, August 29, 2014 (UTC) :::Template removed. If problems occur, I'm putting it back up again. ( Omega16)(Talk) 18:03, August 29, 2014 (UTC) Importance? Do we really need a page for stuff like this? It doesn't even feel wiki-like; why not make it a subsection of Dan-Ball? 18:33, September 3, 2014 (UTC) :Well, there's a page for several things about the site and not just the games. In fact, I think the wiki should include the rest of the site, since it is called the "Dan-Ball Wiki". Where the party's at [[User:$igma|'Σ']] 19:42, September 3, 2014 (UTC) Well, the Webmasters are a massive part of Dan-Ball if you think about it. That's why I made a separate page. But, that aside, you could include it on the main Dan-Ball page, but the page is more game related, rather than content related. If you really want to get rid of this, you'd probably want to include all those other articles related to content of Dan-Ball, at which point the article would be too big. My point being, there are A LOT of pages on here that could be included in one page. The Stick Ranger attack pages are a good example. It's a really new page, I mean, five edits. None have been from Ivan or other massively experienced editors. Of course it won't be that good. It's just like when you nominated the Comment Boards for deletion. If it's not perfect, don't just delete it, Fix it. Starrysock (talk) 19:34, September 3, 2014 (UTC) :And that's why I removed the template. Fixing it up to snuff should be good enough, but it's not going to be perfect and not like it needs a deletion nomination. :Seriously, stop rushing thoughts to delete something that's not fixed enough and/or what you think is not important when the page actually is. ( Omega16)(Talk) 19:40, September 3, 2014 (UTC) ::What's wrong with having an opinion. Forget it. 01:15, September 10, 2014 (UTC) ::Nothing... These were simply ''our ''opinions. (file:xparasite gif.gif(Starrysock (talk))) 02:18, September 10, 2014 (UTC) :::Unlike most here, I try not to say opinions. What I was saying is the truth: It NEEDS fixed, and is a major role (if not, close) in Dan-Ball, as it wouldn't exist without them, and this wiki, too, wouldn't exist, either. ( Omega16)(Talk) 03:32, September 10, 2014 (UTC)